I want Bryson and de Castell's research to succeed, hence the
complexity and length of my response to their report.
I'd like to start with the last sentence "... we want to invite
discussion of how research aimed at the transformation of participatory
structures might be possible."
For my efforts in change I refer to Jana Sawicki's 'Disciplining
Foucault' as my grounding theory - in particular radical pluralism -
"It is based on a form on incrementalism in which the distinction between
reform and revolution is collapsed. ... It is an incrementalism that
recognizes domination, but also represents the social field as a dynamic,
multidimensional set of relationships containing possibilities for
liberation as well as domination." (pg. 8)
Incrementalism. Relationships. Possibilities.
Bryson and de Castell themselves note (MCA pg. 131) "Far more
critical to understanding such learning situations appears to be the
recognition that social relations frame epistemology, they do not derive
from it."
Yes. And from this, I think, hinges the ability of university
based researcher to enter a preK - 12 public school and become both a LPP
as well as a _researcher_.
The researcher must/needs recognize that the personal
relationship with the classroom teacher is going to be paramount in
effective research that also has as part of its goal to be
'counter-paradigmatic'(pg 119).
"Finally (4) everyone, from students and teachers to school
administrators and academicians, respond to this kind of work with
requests for more on 'the positive side,' reminding us that while there's
still much to be done, we've 'come a long way Baby,' and couldn't we
please talk more about that (pg. 133)."
Bryson and de Castell have failed to note that their very subject
of study, the public high school, finds itself in relationship to its
community, highly marginalized. While schools are agents of normalcy
within the culture, they are also at present staffed by marginalized
workers (public school teachers) in a presently marginalized
institution. Everyone, regardless of political persuasion, feels free to
attack school teachers and school, is a common belief of public school
teachers.
Bryson and de Castell designed their research as "necessarily
interventionist, intends 'deliberately to interfere with the production
of normalcy in school(ed) subjects' (Bryson & de Castell, 1993b) (pg. 120)".
So, Bryson and de Castell are going to keep teachers from doing what they
believe they should be doing. This in an atmosphere of public
controversy where teachers are being told that they're mnot_ doing what
they should be doing.
Bryson and de Castell, "two dykes wearing matching Gap pants, Doc
martins and jackets(pg. 130)" may be marginalized within a larger world of
academia, but within the public school community of practice, they are
members of a community which has historically marginalized the public
school teacher, erased her/his voice, and conducted research for an
agenda that usually was of no use for the public school teacher, but
rather was a agenda from school administration or school of education in
order to make the public school teacher more conforming to _their_
notions of effective teaching within a normalcy framework.
They "want to identify and describe socio-cultural environments
conducive to the equitable distribution of opportunities for the
development of competence (pg. 125)", but to do this they will have to
become part of the community of practice that constitutes the public
school teachers' working domaine.
B. & de C. note (pg. 132) that "we have in every case encountered
a virtually unanimous refusal to collaborate in any way with the project,
even to the extent of refusing workshops, information, seminars, even
just to fill in a questionnaire to explain WHY this work hold no
interest...." Boy! Do I understand this. I also understand the job
pressures that public school teachers are under so that they never feel
as if they have enough time to do well anything that they are supposed to
do.
Incrementalism. Relationships. Possibilities.
This is my answer to the question in the last sentence.
Any change is going to be highly incremental, and the research
data must be 'micro' enough in order to pick up the tiny cracks and
openings for new possibilities.
Teachers are always looking for new possibilities in
_activities_: activities that will help a student demonstrate greater
success in mastering the skills, language and behavior wanted within any
learning context. In order to get the teacher to collaborate with you,
you will have to be willing to _teach_ with the teacher. As Allan
Feldman has pointed out, time will have to be provided for the teachers
to come to a better understanding of their educational situations, with
collaborative antivities of anecdonte-telling, the trying out of edeas,
and systematic inquiry.
Also, Gordon Wells is going to be a huge resource of strategies
in involving teachers within teacher research, which is what B. & de C.
are in the final analysis, most definately involved in. I suggest that
he be used as a sounding board for working-with-teachers-strategies.
As B. & de C. so cogently wrote, epistemology follows
relationships, and so I urge them to focus on the building of one on one
relationships. "(W)ith the exception of fewer than a handful of
indicidual teachers ..." - this handful is the very nucleus of change
to begin with.
Finally, I suggest a Systems Theory of Change than incorporates
chaos theory, as a well of informing strategies for working for change.
One suggestion I make is Jay Lemke's "Textual Politics: discourse and
social dynamics", Taylor & Francis, 1995. And, "Rythms of learning:
Patterns that bridge individuals and organizations", David A. Cowan,
Journal of management inquiry, vol 4 no 3, September 1995.
And, it would be wonderful if there were on-going bulletins about
your journey in their fundamentally extremely difficult terrain that is
being traversed by Bryson and de Castell.
Phillip